Understand that people come to forums like this with hidden agendas. Their initial questions might seem open-minded and exploratory. Then when clear responses aren’t given, they switch to claims of how God is in charge. It doesn’t look like you’re going that way, but you did say something about morals being set when the universe was created or something like that. And, then the Golden Rule. It’s hard to tell where you’re going with the abortion stuff since you don’t seem to have a way to approach the politics of it.
Can you give a succinct statement on how knowing why norms exist is useful as a way to change them?
I am hesitant to attempt to present arguments that are derived from human experience or moral philosophy. That is a specialty all to itself that I have not focused on.
But, based on the reaction here, clarification about arguments opposing exploitative norms that I will not be presenting could enhance communications.
This class includes discussion of how religion included the passing on of norms, but they don’t say a whole lot about the value of those norms. In fact they say they don’t really understand how some of the more liberal ideas got packaged into the old scriptures. The traditional values, the ones that excluded some people were useful for in-group cohesion. That’s a selfish goal, but it did allow them to survive, so who knows where we’d be without it.
I’m not sure if this is a response to my question or not. I just rearranged the words in your claim to form my question. You’ve stated it more than a few times, but haven’t said much about why you think it’s true.
Thanks for the suggestion. It is an interesting site for free education!
I read the lecture subjects and the transcript of the final conclusion lecture about the limits of science relative to religion.
I was surprised see little familiarity with the relevant modern science of morality. However, there was an easily understood summary of the philosopher’s Charles Taylor position on why science cannot answer questions such as “why is slavery wrong” which I was not aware of.
Knowing why moral norms exist is useful for resolving moral disputes because that objective knowledge:
removes the veils of mysticism that religions envelope moral norms in, and
explains these norms origins as cooperation strategies, but some with shameful strategies that increase cooperation for an ingroup at the expense of an outgroup, and some arbitrary food and sex taboos that increase cooperation for an ingroup by being markers of membership and commitment to that ingroup. (Both these exploitative and marker strategies are explored in game theory independent of moral psychology, biology, or species. They are just game theory strategies that people have chanced across.)
This knowledge should help people change exploitative and harmful arbitrary norms by providing objective information for resolving those moral disputes.
Regarding abortion, in the past I have avoided talking about what the science of morality reveals because abortion is both a philosophically complex subject and generates strong emotions. I thought, well, a friendly audience. Let’s see how good an explanation I can construct. I hope to do better next time.
That’s really not that part that set me off. However, as you pointed out, and I agree wholeheartedly, sometimes “do unto others as you’d have them do onto you” isn’t necessarily what the other wants. I only wish I could come up with another example.
Psychology is a legitimate science and not necessarily personal experience. It’s not even a philosophy. What you’re stating, I question as science, but willing to discuss it, as long as it actually does fit science.
I think you will find my links educational too.
When abusive religion is involved, I don’t think you will find a 100% friendly audience here and when it comes to abortion, abusive and domineering religious views are involved, in which to ban the medical procedure. There is no getting around it, especially when one throws in those religious views.
As I said before, shameful strategies don’t always work with some groups and that is often the ultra religious, such as Church of God and Assembly of God extremists. You can’t shame them and I’ve been trying to explain that to you.
My topic in this thread is explaining how the modern science of morality as cooperation strategies can help solve disputes about moral norms.
Moral psychology, such as studying the origins of our moral emotions and when we can believe harming others is morally OK, is part of that science.
However, psychology studying the harm and trauma of norms that exploit outgroups (which we both get angry and indignant about, and I understand you to be recommending) is a different field and not part of the science of morality.
I did not post here to rehash old arguments against exploitative and arbitrary ‘moral’ norms such as abortion bans and “women must be submissive to men”. First, I have no special knowledge in that area. Second, recent public failures of the old arguments indicate to me that new arguments are needed to add to the old to beat back the tide of ignorance and bigotry.
My topic is about adding new arguments supporting the good fight against abortion bans, suppression of women, persecution of homosexuals, and the like, not to rehash the old ones.
I am sure my new arguments will be ineffective with some of the religious right. However, I also know there are many who are uncomfortable with the harm and trauma they know some of their ‘moral’ norms produce. Knowledge from science explaining the shameful and arbitrary origins of those specific norms both 1) removes the veils of mysticism that now surround and protects those ‘moral’ norms from examination and 2) provides the reasons to justify abandoning them that they have been looking for.
I get that you are trying to provide ways out of old traditions. When you have been living with the morals you were handed as a child, but then realize something is wrong, it can be hard to develop a new set of standards on your own.
For that to work, it usually means the person begins the seeking for personal reasons. It’s rare that someone gets presented with science and changes their mind on the spot.
I agree. As Hume pointed out, “reason is the servant of the passions.” But some people question the morality they were brought up with. They are the people the science of morality is most likely to benefit. They are looking for reasons to abandon moral norms that create harm and are inconsistent with their other moral values. Science can provide those reasons.
To me, my original post is a marvel of clarity. But you guys don’t agree, so I still a lot of work to do.
Below is a quote from something else I have written that may or may not help.
"How can the reader feel more confident that the science of morality claims made here are true?
You might start by considering if the cultural moral norms you are aware of, no matter how diverse, contradictory, or strange, can all be explained as parts of cooperation strategies including marker strategies, exploitation of outgroups, and different definitions of who is in favored ingroups or disfavored outgroups. To learn to recognize the parts of cooperation strategies, you might begin with Martin Nowak’s book SuperCooperators, Oliver Curry’s perspective on Morality as Cooperation, and the book that made the lightbulb that illuminated morality come on for me, The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod.
You might also examine your own moral sense. Morality as cooperation strategies is what selected for our moral sense. This morality must then fit our moral sense like a key in a well-oiled lock, because this key, morality as cooperation strategies, is what shaped this lock, our moral sense. Confirm for yourself the harmony between morality as cooperation strategies and the judgments and motivations of your own moral sense."
And I’m telling you there are groups that won’t cooperate unless it’s on their terms.
Those who are traumatized aren’t necessarily the outgroup at the time of trauma. That’s why the term RTS. These people were not part of the outgroup in the group they were in at the time of trauma.
I’m still not so sure you aren’t talking pseudo-science. You haven’t produced anything except your own info, as far as I know. You have no link to anything backing up what you are saying.
I can also extend that quote as:
"Morality as cooperation strategies is the heart of what makes us human and such an incredibly successful social species. It is past time we began using our scientific knowledge about morality to resolve disputes about which moral norms will be advocated and enforced. "
So what? Does that mean we just give up? No, of course not.
There are people who are looking for justification for changing the moral norms they grew up with. That is how we have made moral progress. See The Expanding Circle by Peter Singer for a wonderful view of how we make moral progress that is fully consistent with the science of morality as cooperation.
I plan to aim my arguments at those who are looking for objective reasons to abandon the moral norms they grew up with that cause harm and suffering. There may be more of them now and in the future (as they see people turning away from such norms) than you think.
What approach are you thinking of that might work with diehard extremists? I’ve been assuming we would just have to wait for the diehards to die out.
@citizenschallengev4 has asked that rhetorical question a few times too. Slightly different topics, but similar. Here’s “the thing”. Change happens, but not as fast as we need it to right now. And, it’s been happening faster than normal over the last 100 years, so, I don’t have a lot of hope for the normal of pace of doing things. For instance, we can see more atheism and more liberalism coming up in the next generation, but they won’t have the power quick enough to avert global climate disasters, attacks on democracies, and maybe worse.
That calls for a different strategy. Simply recognizing social forces and reporting them is not enough. Any kind of force, or attempt to manipulate minds is just doing what the old authoritarians did, and it will backfire. Some sort of new way of listening to the mass of uneducated, indoctrinated, easy-to-sway population is needed. Solutions to oppression and poverty are already out there, but people don’t think they are fair. We have to hear their pain and apply the same solutions to them to get them on the right side of history. For example, this was starting to happen with Obamacare, then Trump came along.